for keeping my consumer alive (very long variable length processing) I'm implementing a empty poll() call in a background thread that will keep the broker from rebalancing if I spend too much time between polls(). I have set my poll-interval to be very long, but I don't want to just keep increasing it forever for longer and longer processing.
What's the proper way to poll for no records? Currently I'm calling poll(), then re-seeking back to the earliest offsets for each partition returned in the poll call() so they can be read properly by the main thread once it's done processing the previous messages.
ConsumerRecords<String, String> msgs = kafkaConsumer.poll(timeout);
Map<Integer, Long> partitionToOffsets = getEarliestPartitionOffsets(msgs); // helper method
seekToOffsets(partitionToOffsets);
The proper way to handle long processing time (and avoiding consumer rebalance) is to use KafkaConsumer.pause() / KafkaConsumer.resume() methods. You can read more about it here:
KafkaConsumer JavaDoc
Apache Kafka JIRA
Related
I am new to Kafka and would like to seek advice on what is the best practice to handle such scenario.
Scenario:
I have a spring boot application that has a consumer method that is listening for messages via the #KafkaListner annotation. Once an incoming message has occurred, the consumer method will process the message, which simply performs database updates to different tables via JdbcTemplate.
If the updates to the tables are successful, I will manually commit the message by calling the acknowledge() method. If the database update fails, instead of calling the acknowledge() method, I will call the nack() method with a given duration (E.g. 10 seconds) such that the message will reappear again to be consumed.
Things to note
I am not concerned with the ordering of the messages. Whatever event comes I just have to consume and process it, that's all.
I am only given a topic (no retryable topic and no dead letter topic)
Here is the problem
If I do the above method, my consumer becomes inconsistent. Let's say if I call the nack() method with a duration of 1min, meaning to say after 1 min, the same message will reappear.
Within this 1 min, there could "x" number of incoming messages to be consumed and processed. The observation made was none of these messages are getting consumed and processed.
What I want to know
Hence, I hope someone will advise me what I am doing wrongly and what is the best practice / way to handle such scenarios.
Thanks!
Records are always received in order; there is no way to defer the current record until later, but continue to process other records after this one when consuming from a single topic.
Kafka topics are a linear log and not a queue.
You would need to send it to another topic; the #RetryableTopic (non-blocking retrties) feature is specifically designed for this use case.
https://docs.spring.io/spring-kafka/docs/current/reference/html/#retry-topic
You could also increase the container concurrency so at least you could continue to process records from other partitions.
I'm trying to understand what is better option to handle records that take longer to process in kafka consumer? I ran few tests to understand this and observed that we can control this with by modifying either max.poll.records or max.poll.interval.ms.
Now my question is, what's the better option to choose? Please suggest.
max.poll.records simply defines the maximum number of records returned in a single call to poll().
Now max.poll.interval.ms defines the delay between the calls to poll().
max.poll.interval.ms: The maximum delay between invocations of
poll() when using consumer group management. This places an upper
bound on the amount of time that the consumer can be idle before
fetching more records. If poll() is not called before expiration of
this timeout, then the consumer is considered failed and the group
will rebalance in order to reassign the partitions to another member.
For consumers using a non-null group.instance.id which reach this
timeout, partitions will not be immediately reassigned. Instead, the
consumer will stop sending heartbeats and partitions will be
reassigned after expiration of session.timeout.ms. This mirrors the
behavior of a static consumer which has shutdown.
I believe you can tune both in order to get to the expected behaviour. For example, you could compute the average processing time for the messages. If the average processing time is say 1 second and you have max.poll.records=100 then you should allow approximately 100+ seconds for the poll interval.
If you have slow processing and so want to avoid rebalances then tuning either would achieve that. However extending max.poll.interval.ms to allow for longer gaps between poll does have a bit of a side effect.
Each consumer only uses 2 threads - polling thread and heartbeat thread.
The latter lets the group know that your application is still alive so can trigger a rebalance before max.poll.interval.ms expires.
The polling thread does everything else in terms of group communication so during the poll method you find out if a rebalance has been triggered elsewhere, you find out if a partition leader has died and hence metadata refresh is required. The implication is that if you allow longer gaps between polls then the group as a whole is slower to respond to change (for example no consumers start receiving messages after a rebalance until they have all received their new partitions - if a rebalance occurs just after one consumer has started processing a batch for 10 minutes then all consumers will be hanging around for at least that long).
Hence for a more responsive group in situations where processing of messages is expected to be slow you should choose to reduce the records fetched in each batch.
If I poll() from a consumer in a while True: statement, I see that poll() is blocking. If the consumer is up to date with messages from the topic (offset = OFFSET_END) how is the consumer conducting it's blocking poll()?
Does the consumer default adhere to a pub/sub mentality in which it sleeps and waits for a publish and a broadcast/signal from the broker?
Or is the consumer constantly spinning itself checking the topic?
I'm using the confluent python client, if that matters.
Thanks!
kafka consumers are basically long poll loops, driven (asynchronously) by the user thread calling poll().
the whole protocol is request-response, and entirely client driven. there is no form of broker-initiated "push".
fetch.max.wait.ms controls how long any single broker will wait before responding (if no data), while blocking of the user thread is controlled by argument to poll()
Yes, you are right its while a true condition that waits to consume the message till waiting timeout time.
If it receives a message it will return immediately otherwise it will await to passed timeout and return an empty record.
Kafka Broker use the below parameter to control message to send to Consumer
fetch.min.bytes: The broker will wait for this amount of data to fill BEFORE it sends the response to the consumer client.
fetch.wait.max.ms: The broker will wait for this amount of time BEFORE sending a response to the consumer client unless it has enough data to fill the response (fetch.message.max.bytes)
There is a possibility to take a long time to call the next poll() due to the processing of consumed messages. max.poll.interval.ms prevent not to process take so much time and call the next poll within max.poll.interval.ms otherwise consumer leaves the group and trigger rebalance.
You can get more detail about this here
max.poll.interval.ms: By increasing the interval between expected polls, you can give the consumer more time to handle a batch of
records returned from poll(long). The drawback is that increasing this
value may delay a group rebalance since the consumer will only join
the rebalance inside the call to poll. You can use this setting to
bound the time to finish a rebalance, but you risk slower progress if
the consumer cannot actually call poll often enough.
max.poll.records: Use this setting to limit the total records returned from a single call to a poll. This can make it easier to
predict the maximum that must be handled within each poll interval. By
tuning this value, you may be able to reduce the poll interval, which
will reduce the impact of group rebalancing.
I need to prevent the kafka consumer from timing out while the application waits for a particular process to complete. My approach is to pause the partitions and then resume them once the process is completed.
List<TopicPartition> partitionList = new ArrayList<>();
partitionList.addAll(kafkaConsumer.assignment());
kafkaConsumer.pause(partitionList);
while(//waiting for the process to complete){
Thread.sleep(10000);
kafkaConsumer.poll(0);
}
kafkaConsumer.resume(partitionList);
Questions
Does pause send heartbeat to kafka automatically or should I still need to poll at regular intervals to send the heart beat?
Is mine the best approach ? or is there a better way of doing it?
Since Kafka 0.10.1, consumers do have a background thread for sending heartbeats: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-62%3A+Allow+consumer+to+send+heartbeats+from+a+background+thread
Thus, you don't need to call poll() to send heartbeat to the brokers. However, there is a second timeout max.poll.interval.ms -- you must call poll() within this time to avoid this second timeout. Default value is 5 minutes. You can just increase this timeout if your wait is even longer than this. If you do so, you also don't need to pause any partitions etc.
If you are using an older version, you approach of pausing, and calling poll() regularly is the only way to send regular heartbeat to avoid the timeout.
What should be the better approach while implementing kafka consumer.
Objective is read from Kafka and write back to db. Millions of Rows
Approach 1 :
Per Partition - Per Consumer - Wait for message to consume(i.e. written back to db) then proceed to next in polling loop.
Approach 2 :
Per Partition - Per Consumer - Send Record to worker thread or threadpool to be written back to db and later on commit the offset and keep on polling. Offset Management needs to be taken taken care. In this don't wait for message to written back to DB. Just keep on polling, pass the message to worker thread.
Any insights on both of them ?
Thanks
Approach 1:
The approach is applicable only if it is possible for you to estimate the message processing time otherwise it is not recommended.
Problem: In this approach the main problem is keeping the consumer alive, If you will wait for the messages to be completely processed before calling the poll() again, you have to make sure that your consumer should be alive until it calls poll() because kafka maintains a property named "session.timeout.ms". The kafka broker/cluster takes it action on the value of this property, if consumer is unable to call poll() again with in the time period of "session.timeout.ms", broker will mark consumer dead and it will be kicked out. Now, when consumer will finish the message processing and will call poll() again, it is considered as a new joiner and will again give the set of records starting from the offset as it was before. Keeping this scenario in mind, consumer will be stuck in an infinite loop where it will never proceed its offset.
Possible solution 1: To use this approach you need a good value of following property "session.timeout.ms" with the following side effects:
1: Value too low: Consumer will be marked dead as described above and will never proceed its offset, however messages will be processed but every time it finish the messages it will get the previous messages + new messages again.
2: Value too high: Broker will be very late in detecting the genuine failure of consumer that will result in record duplication and will effect the overall throughput.
Possible Solution 2: (Only valid for version 0.10.1.x) Official fix by Kafka in release (0.10.1.0).
In this approach, two notable entities are introduced: a new property "max.poll.interval.ms" that sets the maximum delay between client calls to poll() and a background thread that is responsible for keeping the consumer alive. So, in a scenario, when consumer calls a method poll() and then gets busy in message processing , the internal background thread will keep the heart beat alive and as a result consumer will stay alive. However, this internal background thread will itself remain alive until the timeout value for the property “max.poll.interval.ms” remains valid. So, this thread will wait for the consumer to call poll() with in the time period value of “max.poll.interval.ms” if not, it will send a leave request and will die itself as well."
Again the tricky part in this solution is to find a suitable value of this property: "max.poll.interval.ms" (very important, This time will be the time for which background thread will keep the heartbeat alive without the need of explicit calling poll()).
Approach 2: Using a worker thread is a good idea but then you have to maintain an internal queue or validation for received messages which can be complex and also you need to use manual commits against auto commits. For more information about commits see this and search heading "Commits and Offsets".
Problem: In this approach the main problem is to keep track of messages received and messages processed successfully. As, your consumer will receive the message it will pass message to respective worker thread and will commit the offset and move forward to receive more messages. During this process you have to take care of following issues:
What if the message is received and offset committed but later for whatever reason the worker thread failed to process the message, now how to get that message again ?
What if messages are received by consumer but there are no free worker threads to process ?
Solution: There can be different ways to resolve the above issues and one way is to use the internal queue to keep the messages and manual commits that will be sent only when worker thread will report the successful processing of the message. However a very careful implementation is required because it can leads to complex code and can also results in memory management or threading issues.
Suggestion: Depending upon your requirements, you can use one approach or the other with implementing fixed for the possible issues as described above. However I would recommend a more robust solution will be to use partition pause/resume. In very abstract way your consumer should do following steps:
1: poll () for messages.
2: Pause all the respective topics/partitions.
3: Assigned messages to worker threads and wait for their processing.
4: Keep calling poll() but as the partitions are paused there will be no extra message received while consumer will be kept alive. (Make sure no new topic is registered during this point)
5: If all worker threads should report message processing success/failure then commit the offsets accordingly.
6: Resume all the partitions.
Note: There can be better ways or other solutions possible depending upon your scenario and requirements. It's just an idea or one of the possible solutions.